lemm.ee

0 points

3 months ago

Those that are most heavily armed don’t seem very polite, but a lot of people get shot.

Remember, we’re talking about intent here. Whether you believe it’s true has zero bearing, it’s whether he may.

You don’t send security to an event without the intent of using it if needed.

Well, sure. But that’s like when I put on my seatbelt when I get in the car: I’m not planning to crash into someone just taking the necessary precautions. I know it will be necessary as time approaches infinity, but this is a far cry from saying I intend to get into an accident because I put my seatbelt on, which is effectively what we’re talking about.

If your argument is that he’s guilty because he knew he might have to use a gun to protect himself, rather than going with the intent of actually shooting someone, then I disagree that this even remotely makes him guilty of a crime, as this would mean I’m guilty of intending to cause an accident because I put my seatbelt.

report

[ - ]

CileTheSane@lemmy.ca

2 points

3 months ago

Remember, we’re talking about intent here. Whether you believe it’s true has zero bearing, it’s whether he may.

People believe vaccines cause Autism. When they don’t vaccinate their children I’m going to blame them for the death regardless of whatever stupid belief led them to think their children were invincible. They are still at fault despite the stupid crap they believe.

that’s like when I put on my seatbelt when I get in the car: I’m not planning to crash into someone just taking the necessary precautions

Oh, does Rittenhouse bring his gun like that every time he leaves the house? Or is this more like adding more safety features to your vehicle (air bags, better bumpers, roll cage etc) before going somewhere you knew beforehand people were driving on the wrong side of the road, and the only reason you’re going there is to enforce traffic laws?

Rittenhouse is not a cop. He went there to be a vigilante. If he didn’t want to use the gun then he’s a fucking idiot, and being ignorant is no defence.

report

[ - ]

0 points

3 months ago

People believe vaccines cause Autism. When they don’t vaccinate their children I’m going to blame them for the death regardless of whatever stupid belief led them to think their children were invincible.

Okay, but your argument is that he intended to shoot someone, I think you understand that, even if they are stupid, they didn’t intend to kill their child. Just like what was probably to he case with Rittenhouse, he thought he was doing the right thing, he’s just an idiot. Unfortunately, being an idiot is not a crime. Intending to kill or hurt someone is, which is what we are talking about.

report

[ - ]

CileTheSane@lemmy.ca

2 points

3 months ago

Ignorance and stupidity is not a defense. It doesn’t matter if someone believes there is a child trafficking ring in the basement of a pizza place, and they are “doing the right thing” by going in there with a gun insisting on being shown the basement. It’s still a crime.

report

[ - ]

-1 points

3 months ago

In this example, you are saying it doesn’t matter if they thought they were doing the right thing because a crime was committed anyway. I absolutely agree with you here.

However, your initial position was that Rittenhouse committed a crime because he intended to shoot someone. If your claim is now that he ignorantly broke a law, I would say “okay which one?” and also inquire as to what happened to your initial position. Is this an admission you realize that he may not have gone there with the intent to shoot someone?

report

[ - ]

CileTheSane@lemmy.ca

1 point

3 months ago

“responding to my arguments means you have given up your position.”

Not really, no. He went there with the intent to shoot someone. You are correct that we do not have a mind reading machine so it cannot be 100% proven, that doesn’t make it not true. I further expanded that even if someone were to accept your argument that he didn’t that doesn’t mean he’s innocent of his actions. My point was either way he’s a murderer.

If your claim is now that he ignorantly broke a law, I would say “okay which one?”

Vigilantism. “The laws / legal system are insufficient” is not a defense of immoral, dangerous, or damaging behaviour.

report

[ - ]

1 point

3 months ago

You are correct that we do not have a mind reading machine so it cannot be 100% proven, that doesn’t make it not true.

I’ve made it pretty clear that Im not certain of his state of mind, by saying he only probably didn’t go with an intent to shoot people. Maybe that is even unfair, but I tend to think people are more likely to be motivated stupidity rather than motivated by malice.

You seem to be criticizing your own position here because you are the one defending your claim that you know what his state of mind was, and appear to be assuming, because I disagree with you, that I must be taking the exact opposite position and assuming that I know he had no intent to shoot people.

further expanded that even if someone were to accept your argument that he didn’t that doesn’t mean he’s innocent of his actions.

Sure, and I followed this up with some more questions as to what was the crime. It would have also gone a long way to ease the debate if you had said you were no longer talking about intent (especially because you kept repeatedly saying that intent did not matter) and had moved on to a new way to try and claim you know he was guilty.

Vigilantism. “The laws / legal system are insufficient” is not a defense of immoral, dangerous, or damaging behaviour.

Which law exactly? Why wasn’t he charged with it? If a shop owner stood there with a gun to protect their own property, is that illegal vigilantism? What if it is the shop owner and their family? Or friend? I’m curious to hear this line of reasoning, but it’s a bit vague for me to really sink my teeth into.

report